The Washington critic., 1887-12-09
A. ~ ~ an In ,AN.


In llarpcr's Weekly for the current
week the position OF that journal, with
regard to the nest Presidential contest,
in the event of Mr.. Blaino's rcnomina-
tion, Is Gcincd 50 clearly that he who
rum may real.
II there are friends Of the Administia-
ton who entertain any apprehension
that Mr.. Cleveland's chances Of carrying
New York are endangered by the alien
alton of the independent vote they need
give themselves nu further nneasincss.
II there are opponents Of the Admins
trition who cherish the hope or eNpecia-
ton that the Independents Of New
York, by reason Of Mr.. Clcvclnnd's less
advanced ideas Of Civil Service Reform,
will refrain from giving him their sup
mort for second term, the sooner they
disabuse their minds Of this mistaken
notion the better for them.
Tie idea now presented by Mr.. Cur
lis, not for the first time, perhaps, but
for the first time SO forcibly, is that the
independents who were tariff roformers
did not support Mr.. Cleveland in 1851
Us ''free-trader," but because he was
not u ''high protectionist." lndepend-
cnts who were Civil Service Reformers
did not support him as their ideal of
what n Civil Service Reformer should
be- but because he was friendly to re-
FORM" He represented upon both
these questions sentiments TO which Mr..
Blaine was known to be antagonized.
Therefore, any effort that may be
made to show that the Independent vote
which supported Mr.. Cleveland in 1884
Is logically bound to abandon him in
1888, must be ineffective because 1t is
based on wrong premises.
Given the same conditions, and with
Cleveland and Blaine again in the field
they would be substantially reproduced,
and the Independents could not consist
emily change their colors or transfer
their allegiance. They would vote for
Mr.. Cleveland, Mr.. Curtis says, "bc-
cause support of him was the practical
way of defeating Mr.. Blaine"
Especial stress is laid upon the point
that the President originally was not
the full and perfect embodiment of Civil
Service Reform, but he was supported
by the Independents for the reason that
Mr.. Blaine was not reformer in any
sense. Consequently the Presidents
failure to reach the higher levels of re-
form is not to be accounted against him
as Il fall from grace, nor is he to be sub.
iectcd to censorious rebuke for not car
rying out in all respects the views OF
the simon-pure reformers who stood by
him at the polls.
He is still entitled to the same vote il
the same race is to be run over, and fol
the same reasons. Says the editorial &c
which We refer:
Nothing could DO more comcal thRn for Inde
pcndents to decline TO vote for Mr.. Cleveland ai
false to reform, and to vote for Mr. Blaine ms TIN
candidate of reform party No party tina
should nominate MIR. Blaine could deccntly CLAIM
to he u reform party. Whatever muy have beol
the failures aud inconsistencies of Mr.. Clnva
land In this respect, MIR. Blaine Is the pcclllln
representative of things to be reformed, and hi
defeat in itself would bc u victory for reform.
- II the Republican party should II
nominate Mr.. Blaine, no platform rhetoric, N
eloquent claim that the Republican party Is til
only and original frie d Of reform, no denunciu
tlul oi the President as u schcmlng traitor to n
form, would deceive single honest independen
voter lie would think, as he thought and sui
IN lsSt that such nomination raised an issu
which took precedence Of all others. The que
tioi would not I've whether the Republican part
was more u reform party than the Democratic
or whether Mr. cleveland had or hnd not disal
pointcd Just authorizations. II would be precisel
as 1t was In 81, whether the Republican cand
date was the kind Of naa who ought To
elected President.
There arc signs and portents in tn
political skies that the old fight is to b
fought over again, and this time with {
least one of the two great issues ia
moro pronounced and incisive than
was in 1884. So far as Civil Service r,
form is concerned, Mr.. Blaine is Il
more representative of tho reforl
idea now than he was then, while
Mr.. Cleveland is a good enough reform,
for Mr.. Curtis, he is good enough for n
the Mugwumps.
As for revenue reform, Mr.. Clov
lands recent utterances place him
the front of that movement whithe
soever it may lead, while the recent u
terances Of Mr.. Blaine show him to
rs obstinatcly welded as ever to Il
doctrines of high protection.
As between the two, both parties wi
90 into the canvass with full foreknoN
edge of the attitude of the lndepen